Talk:Fascism/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overlap between fascism and socialism

It is biased not to include socialism as a related ideology. In every form of socialism except anarcho-socialism, the state owns the means of production i.e. has a monopoly on all goods and services. Typically, there will be one corporation, bureau, etc. in charge of a particular product/service. In fascism, the state controls the means of production but often allows corporations (even competitors) to continue in existence. However, the state forces corporations and unions into product/service specific cartels. These cartels of course must comply with the wishes of the state or lose their government granted privilege. In socialism, the state is the de jure owner of the means of production. In fascism, the state is the de facto owner of the means of production. (JoeCarson 19:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

First of all, state ownership over the means of production is not the defining aspect of socialism. There are many forms of socialism (including libertarian socialism but also social democracy and market socialism) which do not rely on state ownership. The defining aspect of socialism is the desire to establish social equality. State ownership may be used to achieve this, but it may also be used as a means to enforce inequality (as fascism does). Fascism and socialism are opposites because socialism seeks equality whereas "Fascism affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men" (quoted from Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism). -- Nikodemos 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the introductory paragraph of socialism. State ownership of the means of production is a defining aspect of most socialist economic systems. (JoeCarson 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

If that is what the introductory paragraph of socialism says, then the paragraph is wrong. Indeed, it is illogical. State ownership of the means of production is much older than socialism. Also, many fascists made statements in opposition to socialism or in support of private enterprise. For example:


-- Nikodemos 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nikodemos, socialism is defined by the common ownership of the means of production-this may or may not take the form of state ownership. Fascism is characterised by corporatism and nationalism-radically opposed to common ownership. That some fascist and some socialist regimes have been quite statist is a different matter, and not one of ideology. In fact, many have argued that statist socialist societies are not socialist at all (hence the term "state capitalist"). I think that, as Orwell pointed out, fascism and fascist can become convenient labels to use on things that some disapprove of, in this case socialism, but also radical islam ( with the preposterous "islamofascism")-these comparisons hinder rather than help understanding.Felix-felix 11:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Fascists made statements stressing their supposed differences with socialists, but these were like the statements of a child defining himself in opposition to his parents. Those statements may or may not be true, but either way, the child will end up very much like the parent.

Mussolini may have made statements against government intervention in the economy, but the reality of the situation was far different. Fascists allow the profit motive to shape the market by allowing some businesses to remain in private hands, but they exercise strict control over those businesses. "You can do what you want as long as I agree with it." Is not very far from "Do what I say."

The members of the economics subset "fascism" have far greater than 50% overlap with the members of the economic subset "socialism". (JoeCarson 12:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

Regarding your last edit-not only are socalism and fascism diametrically opposed ideologically, but both groups have always historically been in conflict. Fascism has never incorporated elements of socialism into it's ideology, which is what your last edit stated.Your arguments above seem to say that you think that their ideologies are diferent but you think the practices are similar (I think, anyway..) but that's not what your last edit implied.Hence he revert.Felix-felix 13:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Must we have a revert war over this?

Hello, User:JoeCarson. I presume you are aware that you have repeated the same revert 3 times in less than 24 hours. FYI, here are two excerpts from the WP policy page WP:3RR:

The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.
The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not necessarily mean that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

A word to the wise: some might describe your repeated reverts as "skating on thin ice". In a nutshell, your continuing arguments on this point simply are not going to carry the day — not when every other editor who has weighed in strongly disagrees, and with solid explanations. So if you persist in inserting the same edit, you will assuredly meet the description of "disruptive editing".

And, by the way, in light of your adamant insistence on adding "socialism", it's clearly no accident that you consistently choose to place it at the head of the list (rather than unobtrusively at the end or in the middle) — which indicates to me that the purpose is to give additional emphasis to the purported link between socialism and fascism.

Can we please call off this pointless argument, which is only wasting everybody's time? (including your own) Cgingold 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Come up with a sound argument for not including socialism on the list of related ideologies and I will not include it. As it stands, no one has addressed the economic similarities. BTW, I inserted socialism at the beginning because it was a tad bit easier to place it there. Though, I concede that if we are to order them by degree of overlap, it certainly belongs after corporatism and authoritarianism. (JoeCarson 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

I see that I posted my "heads up" FYI a few minutes too late to do any good. Before I head over to WP:AN3 to file a report, I would like to ask JoeCarson if you will voluntarily agree to cease your reverts? If not, I'm afraid you will leave me no choice. Cgingold 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will abide by Wikipedia's policy of no more than 3 reverts in 24hrs, I confess I was ignorant of this. However, I cannot in good conscience allow the fascism page to go on without any mention of its similarities with socialism. Wikipedia is not here to foist the views of some on gullible readers, it is here to present accurate information in an unbiased format. I believe we were both editing this page the last time I suggested this and so it did not process correctly. You appear to be opposed to this inclusion because you do not want to associate what you believe are the negative qualities of fascism with what you percieve as the positive qualities of socialism. Can we agree to include an explanation of where the two overlap, in this page or a linked page? (JoeCarson 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

This is a resurrection of a many-months-long debate we had years ago (remember WHEELER?). As an ideology and political movement, Socialism predates Fascism and there is no surprise that within Fascist ideology one can see traces of the influence of socialism - as well as explicit attempts to coopt elements of socialism and also attempts to distinguish fascism from socialism. Nevertheless, they are distinct ideologies and to my knowledge have almost always been in opposition as actual political movements. From an economic perspective, one could say that they are distinct responses to certain problems with capitalism. One could say that both Fascism and Bolshevism created "corporatist" regimes, but one could also argue that FDR's New Deal was in some ways "corporatist" and this had more to do with global trends in the 1930s than similarities in fascist, communist, and liberal ideology. The extent to which actual socialist and fascist regimes are similar or different may be worth discussing, but it is crucial to distinguish between the ideology (which seldom takes one form), the political movement (which may make tactical alliances that contradict the proclaimed ideology), and the political regime which again typically must respond to exogenous forces that may lead it to diverge from its own ideology.Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for these comments! You somehow managed to post them after I read JoeCarson's last response, and before I could post my own reply. :) At any rate, I was merely going to suggest that Joe take a look at the very end of the main section about "Definitions" right before the sub-section "Scope of the word Fascism", where there is indeed a sentence which talks about "corporatist socialism". Perhaps that might be elaborated upon somewhat. If it were handled properly, I would have no problem with that. Cgingold 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Here is approximately what I propose to add to the Definitions section with regards to corporatist socialism.

"There are similarities between the fascist and socialist economic systems. Chief among these is a high degree of state control over the means of production, and outright state ownership of many major industries. Where the two economic systems differ is in the relatively larger degree of freedom given to companies in a fascist economy. Companies in fascist economies remain nominally private and are free to seek profits if their actions are in accord with state policy. Furthermore, fascist governments often allow the existence of multiple competing commpanies in a single industry, whereas centrally controlled socialist economies typically have a single state monopoly in each industry. Despite the economic similarities, the social policies of socialist and fascist governments are quite disparate. Whereas socialism seeks egalitarianism, fascists often embrace social darwinism as the basis for inequalities in society."


Feel free to revise this and give your input. If there are no objections, I will add this in no less than 48hrs. (JoeCarson 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

Is there any indication that the degree of state control over the economy under fascism is any greater than the degree of state control over the economy in modern liberal democracies? -- Nikodemos 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, the first sentence should probably say something like, "There are similarities between fascist and corporatist (or state perhaps?) socialist economic systems, regarding the degree of state intervention in the economy."

However, this argument could apply to many different systems (New Deal US, 1970s UK, for example), and the rest of the para invalidates the passage "high degree of state control over the means of production, and outright state ownership of many major industries." by "fascist governments often allow the existence of multiple competing commpanies in a single industry" this is contradictory is it not? This just seems like a bit of a shoehorn comparison-of doubtful usefulness. I don't think it should go in.Felix-felix 09:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think it should go in. Socialism is such a broad church, with libertarian currents that oppose state control, that to qualify it enough to be accurate would be too contorted. If it does go in, I agree with Felix-Felix that it should say something like "between fascist and state socialist" or "fascist and some forms of socialist". Incidentally, I am not against the idea that there is a kinship between fascism and socialism - I know there is but we need to describe it right. BobFromBrockley 11:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to propose any changes for the paragraph, "There are similarities between the fascist and socialist ..." yet. for now, i just want to know what the source is. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I agree that socialism should be qualified as state or corporatist socialism.
"However, this argument could apply to many different systems..."
It does, but this article is not about those systems.
"and the rest of the para invalidates the passage "high degree of state control over the means of production, and outright state ownership of many major industries." by "fascist governments often allow the existence of multiple competing commpanies in a single industry" this is contradictory is it not?"
It is not.
"Companies in fascist economies remain nominally private and are free to seek profits if their actions are in accord with state policy."
Those companies must still meet the demands of the state. It is de facto ownership, but with greater latitude than is normally given in state socialism. Also, those companies and unions in the same industry are forced into cartels that further blurs the line between separate competing companies and a single state sanctioned monopoly.
(JoeCarson 12:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Please indent your comments to avoid confusion. You say this article is not about those other systems, but it is not about socialism weither. If we compare fascism to one other system, we should compare it to all other systems that bear a comparison. I did not make the other points you refer to. But I did raise this question, to which you have not yet responded: I am not going to propose any changes for the paragraph, "There are similarities between the fascist and socialist ..." yet. for now, i just want to know what the source is. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are strong connections between fascism and socialism. One prominent scholar of fascism, Zeev Sternhell, sees fascism as the successor of anti-Marxist socialism: "Essentially socialist in origin, this fascism rejected Marxism, on the one hand, in the name of a modernized, national, and authoritarian socialism, and liberal democracy and bourgeois society on the other, in the first place in the name of social justice, but above all in the name of efficiency and technical and economic progress, which were the two aims that had to be given priority if the community was to survive the crisis that had come upon the world." and "As the successor of national, anti-Marxist socialism, fascism constituted an extremely violent attempt to return to the social body its unity, integrity, and totality." (from his essay "Fascist Ideology"). -- Vision Thing -- 13:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Marxist socialism meaning what? Anarchist Bakuninism or Proudhonism, the main strain of anti-marxist socialism? Obviously not. He appears to be comparing a statist socialism to statist fascism. By anti-marxist, does he mean stalin era soviet (statist) socialism? It's not very clear. Or, indeed, very relevant.Felix-felix 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"rejected Marxism... in the name of a modernized, national, and authoritarian socialism" seems pretty clear to me. -- Vision Thing -- 13:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The passage reads fascism rejected marxism. What on earth does he mean by anti-marxist socialism? This is not clear-and certainly not relevant.Felix-felix 14:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not try to pretend that this discussion has not happened before on this page and others. Sternhell is a highly respected scholar of fascism, but the majority view rejects these claims about fascism being just another variant of socialism. These periodic attempts by right-wing, libertarian, and conservative editors to ram their marginal POV onto this and related pages is tiresome. Shall we create a page on Marginal right-wing views on fascism and corporatism? Oh, wait we already have two whole pages where these marginal views are aired at length. Fascism and ideology and The New Deal and corporatism. This passive-aggressive periodic attempt to insert marginal POV onto this page really must stop. It is one thing to have new editors come here and restart this discussion because they have not done thier homework. That is not the case here.--Cberlet 13:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires that all views should be represented, not just view of the majority. Current article doesn't do that. -- Vision Thing -- 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not have a section on why fascism is like liberal parlimentary democracy? Or capitalism? Or feudalism? Or slave societies? Or penguin colonies? I just fail to see the relevance of this section except to sort of associate socialism with fascism-pretty ridiculous as they are ideologically and historically opposed.Felix-felix 14:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPOV: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.-- Vision Thing -- 14:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have scholarly sources who have written "on why fascism is like liberal parlimentary democracy? Or capitalism? Or feudalism? Or slave societies? Or penguin colonies?" If so, we should include their views. In the meantime, we do have Sternhell, which is a verifiable source, and we should include his views in the article. In accordance with our NPOV policy, we should not include his views as "the truth" but as the views of one scholar, and it would help to add some background about this scholar e.g. Israeli political scientist, specialist on French fin de siecle politics, or French intellectual history, or whatever. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other quotes from Zeev Sternhell (specifically, from his book The Birth of Fascist Ideology, Princeton University Press, 1994):

  • "Undoubtedly, fascism rejected the prevailing systems: liberalism and Marxism, positivism and democracy." (page 6)
  • "This was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the Fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market." (page 7)
  • "When the Fascist regime in Italy practiced a corporatism based on a liberal economy, when the Fascist movement, long before it came to power, declared through Mussolini that the revolution would relieve the state of its economic functions, this was not mere opportunism." (page 7)
  • "[Fascism] never questioned the idea that market forces and private property were part of the natural order of things... Thus, fascism adopted the economic aspect of liberalism but completely denied its philosophical principles and the intellectual and moral heritage of modernity." (page 7)
  • "Fascism was antimaterialism in its clearest form. But if it was opposed to liberalism and Marxism, it took from liberalism a respect for the power and vitality of the mechanisms of the market economy, and from Marxism a conviction that violence was the motive force of history, which was governed solely by the laws of war." (page 8)

So, according to Sternhell, fascism endorses "an economy determined by the laws of the market". Perhaps we should include that in the article as well. -- Nikodemos 04:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

""There are similarities between the fascist and socialist ..." yet. for now, i just want to know what the source is."
Refer to socialism and fascism. A scholar is not required to identify the similarities between the economic systems of state socialism and fascism. However, because this is such a contentious issue, I propose removing any reference to related ideologies in this article, and instead linking to Fascism and ideology where the controversy can be presented.

(JoeCarson 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

I'm all for including a reference to the similarities between statist socialism and fascism. The two can even become so similar they are indistinguishable in some cases (i.e. Stalinism). If there's a source out there, then mention it. However, also mention that the source specifies that fascism is the successor to "anti-Marxist", "national, and authoritarian socialism", as opposed to Marxism, or internationalist, Marxist internationalist, anti-nationalist or libertarian socialism. It would also make sense to mention fascists' use of socialism and other terms to promote themselves (i.e. National Socialism). I am a socialist, but mentioning that statist socialism shares similarities with fascism does seem fair given his policies. -Switch t 03:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The difference between Wikipedia and a Blog, is that on a blog these sorts of discussions are fascinating, but here on Wikipedia, on a controversial page, what matters is the NPOV presentation of the majority scholarly consensus. So it is just grand that some of you have read 1/500th of the available literature on fascism, but I have shocking news...most reputable published scholars of fascism dismiss what most of you are claiming about the similarity between fascism and socialism as marginal political propoganda from libertarians and other right-wing ideologues who are not recognized as serious scholars of fascism. Of course, this entire matter has been discussed before...as anyone who bothers to take the time to scan the previous discussions can readily see. And a majority of editors reached a decision. Just because a Wikipedia editor is only aware of a marginal POV, or pretends to not remember the previous discussions, does not make this dicussion meritorious. It is marginal POV.--Cberlet 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to include all points of view that have been expressed in publication. This view, wrong or not, has been expressed by a scholar (whom I dislike) in one of his published works. It should be included. It should also be included that his is a minority view and that most scholars disagree, but Wikipedia is not here to represent a majoritarian bias. -Switch t 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
There are certain forms of socialism that support market economy. Also, fascists subjugated functioning of the market to the state (collective) interests and under their rule Italy had highest percentage of state-owned enterprises after the Soviet Union. -- Vision Thing -- 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous authors claiming that [statist] socialism and fascism are fundamentally opposed. There are also numerous authors, including fascists, who claim that fascism supports free markets and capitalism. I have quoted some of those authors above. I may quote others if you wish. The fact is that the relationship between fascism and socialism may be considered disputed at best. The introduction of this article should only make non-controversial statements. The statement that fascism "combines elements of authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, corporatism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism" is not controversial. Therefore it belongs in the intro. The statement that fascism is similar to state socialism is controversial, therefore it does not belong in the intro. -- Nikodemos 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when are we talking about the intro? We're talking about a section well into the article, and whether or not the connections between socialism and fascism should be mentioned at all, considering they've been published but are a vastly minority view (mostly held only by right-libertarians). -Switch t 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
They are already mentioned and discussed in the article fascism and ideology, whose purpose is precisely to handle all the controversial associations made between fascism and various other ideologies. Leaving aside their controversial nature, these things must be discussed at length - such length that they require a separate article (if I am not mistaken, fascism and ideology is longer than the fascism article itself). -- Nikodemos 05:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Statement that some authors view fascism as a form of socialism is not controversial. -- Vision Thing -- 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's what WP:NPOV has to say on the matter:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
Basically, I am arguing that we should follow this policy: "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". -- Nikodemos 06:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. This is really about comparing statist systems anyway-fascism and ideology is the right place for it.Felix-felix 10:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You quoted misleading section. There are three general categories of viewpoints:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Here is easy to name prominent adherents, so this case doesn't belong to "tiny minority" viewpoint. -- Vision Thing -- 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a statistic showing that the majority of scholars do not consider the economic systems of state socialism and fascism to have significant overlap? Also, fascists may have spoken in favor of the market and this should be included in the article. However, their actions in this regard deserve as much coverage as their words. Again, I suggest removing any reference to ideology in this article. As it stands, this article is not neutral. (JoeCarson 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

I do not see how we can have an article on fascism that does not address fascist ideology. It also seems to me that JoeCarson is over-reacting to a situation where our policies (as others have observed) are more than adequate to guide us here. if there is a dispute among scholars of fascism, we just say so, state what the issues of dispute are, and provide an account of the different points of view in the dispute, with verifiable sources. This article will be neutral not when we remove views we do not like, but when we (1) include multiple points of view, (2) identify each point of view as just that - a verifiable point of view from a verifiable source, but not 2the truth," and (3) provide some contextual information about each POV (e.g. it may matter that one is the POV of an historian, the other of a political scientist; that one is the POV of a scholar writing about France, the other of a scholar writing about Germany; that one is the POV of a scholar, the other the POV of a politician, the other the POV of a journalist. Let NPOV and NOR guide us, and we will be fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion Slrubenstein! BobFromBrockley 13:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is one of length and focus. This page cannot possibly contain all the conflicting views on fascism. There are now three pages where theoretical and political viewpoints on this subject are given extensive space. The issue here is that the already present mentions of the issue of socialism and the related debates apparently are not sufficient for a handful of editors who hold one of the many minority viewpoints. They are seeking to unbalance the article toward their minority viewpoint. That it is a minority viewpoint has been discussed at great length, and I suggest folks tour the lengthy discussion page material before suggesting that the matter of what scholars articulate the majority viewpoints (plural) needs to be defended once again.--Cberlet 14:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Roger Griffin, who you recognize as a major mainstream scholar of fascism, "scholars disagree over how to define the basic elements of fascism". However, he does state that many scholars see three common features of all forms of fascism: "anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis." In this article anticonservatism is not mentioned even once, but anticommunism is mentioned in the first sentence and given its own section. So much for the current neutrality of the article, achieved by consensus of left-winged editors... -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, where is the data supporting the assertion that only a minority of scholars believe the economics of fascism and socialism do no overlap significantly? The intro should be changed to read "Fascism is a radical political ideology whose philosophical roots are a matter of controversy. Refer to to Fascism and ideology. (JoeCarson 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

The majority of mainstream scholars of fascism (Griffin, Payne, Paxton, Falk, Wolin, Britt) do not find any significant overlap between fascism and socialism. On another note, there are some features of fascism that are non-controversial. For example, everyone agrees that fascism was authoritarian, nationalist, militarist, corporatist, anti-liberal and anti-communist. Authoritarianism, nationalism and militarism are particularly obvious features of fascism. Thus, some philosophical roots are controversial, others are not. The intro should only mention the non-controversial ones. -- Nikodemos 00:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
If one is going to talk about fascism as ideology in this article, then one cannot just start secreting viewpoints to obscure Wikipedia articles, like Fascism and ideology. See Wikipedia:Content forking. The problem with all fascist-related articles on Wikipedia is that it mixes ideology with actual fascist governments, which at the basis is incommensurable. Examples of this in this article is the Anti-communism section or a large part of the Fascism and religion section, which talks more about Italian fascism in relationship with the Vatican, not about fascism as ideology in relationship with the Vatican (which I doubt you can speak of). Intangible2.0 19:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since scholars cannot agree on a definition of fascist ideology, we are forced to rely on the practical policies of fascist governments in order to infer the key elements of fascist ideology. In other words, the path that is most often used to determine what falls under "fascist ideology" can be described as follows: "We have decided that the following governments were fascist; thus, we will define fascist ideology as any ideas supported by those governments." No wonder so many people (like Orwell) concluded that "fascism" is a meaningless label. -- Nikodemos 00:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, you may not realize this but you are proposing to violate two core policies. First, "we are forced to rely on the practical policies of fascist governments in order to infer the key elements of fascist ideology" - wrong. To do so would be a blatant violation of WP:NOR. Second, there is no need for scholars to agree on a definition of fascist ideology for their work to be included in this article. On the contrary, our WP:NPOV policy encourages us to include multiple points of view. If there are two, three, five, or ten major different scholarly views of fascist ideology, from reliable, verifiable sources, we should put them into this article. If there is a debate among scholars about fascist ideology, we should provide an account of that debate in this article. But under no circumstances are we to provide our own generalization or synthesis account of fascist ideology. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded.-- Vision Thing -- 19:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I was misunderstood. When I said "we are forced to rely on the practical policies of fascist governments in order to infer the key elements of fascist ideology", the "we" referred to people in general, not wikipedia editors in particular. In other words, what I meant was "most people - including scholars of fascism - are forced to rely on the practical policies of fascist governments in order to infer the key elements of fascist ideology". Secondly, I am not suggesting that we exclude any particular point of view from this article. I am suggesting that we refrain from including controversial points of view in the introduction to the article, and I am pointing out the fact that we already have another lengthy article dedicated to the presentation of multiple points of view regarding the relationship between fascism and other ideologies: fascism and ideology. -- Nikodemos 22:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I am glad I misunderstood you concerning the first point - thank you for explaining. As to the second: the introduction should introduce the article as a whole. If the definition of fascism is itself a matter of controversy, the introduction should say so. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism/Archive_17&oldid=1123225029"